Yes, this is a Drudge Headline. Yes, you can eat it if you don't like that. This should end the discussion about needing to raise revenues. Despite taking in a record $1.9 trillion, they're running a deficit of $436 billion.

The problem isn't that the rich aren't kicking in their "fair share." The problem is the pigs in DC will promise anything and everything in order to get elected.

This is why the tea party was willing to shut down the government. This is why they were willing to do the sequester. This is why the tea party is willing to replace conservative leaders. And it will keep on this way until those numbers get fixed.

Yes, this is a Drudge Headline. Yes, you can eat it if you don't like that. This should end the discussion about needing to raise revenues. Despite taking in a record $1.9 trillion, they're running a deficit of $436 billion.

The problem isn't that the rich aren't kicking in their "fair share." The problem is the pigs in DC will promise anything and everything in order to get elected.

This is why the tea party was willing to shut down the government. This is why they were willing to do the sequester. This is why the tea party is willing to replace conservative leaders. And it will keep on this way until those numbers get fixed.

Whether you or I like it or not, the reality is that we do have a revenue problem and not a spending problem.

The reason I say that is because the medical services and retirement income that the voters demand, and by "demand" I mean "we'll vote you right out of office if you don't give it to us or try to cut it" kind of demand, is more than the tax revenue we bring in, and the tax revenue would increase, not decrease, if taxes were raised a little bit.

A lot of conservatives and tea party guys have this fantasy that if some sober well-spoken adult would just have an intelligent conversation with the American people, then they could convince the voters that we can't afford it and must cut spending, but that fantasy is wrong. Anyone who tries to take on that role in a national presidential election is going to lose very badly.

So, if the voters absolutely insist on a level of spending that requires more taxes, and if they are willing to back up that demand by voting out any presidential candidate who runs on cutting spending, then we've only got one other way to balance the budget.

__________________
<ptp> how many emo kids does it take to change a lightbulb?
<Willy> HOW MANY?!
<ptp> none they just sit in the dark and cry

Whether you or I like it or not, the reality is that we do have a revenue problem and not a spending problem.

The reason I say that is because the medical services and retirement income that the voters demand, and by "demand" I mean "we'll vote you right out of office if you don't give it to us or try to cut it" kind of demand, is more than the tax revenue we bring in, and the tax revenue would increase, not decrease, if taxes were raised a little bit.

A lot of conservatives and tea party guys have this fantasy that if some sober well-spoken adult would just have an intelligent conversation with the American people, then they could convince the voters that we can't afford it and must cut spending, but that fantasy is wrong. Anyone who tries to take on that role in a national presidential election is going to lose very badly.

So, if the voters absolutely insist on a level of spending that requires more taxes, and if they are willing to back up that demand by voting out any presidential candidate who runs on cutting spending, then we've only got one other way to balance the budget.

We only have a "revenue problem" because of the spending problem.

__________________I think the young people enjoy it when I "get down," verbally, don't you?

Whether you or I like it or not, the reality is that we do have a revenue problem and not a spending problem.

The reason I say that is because the medical services and retirement income that the voters demand, and by "demand" I mean "we'll vote you right out of office if you don't give it to us or try to cut it" kind of demand, is more than the tax revenue we bring in, and the tax revenue would increase, not decrease, if taxes were raised a little bit.

A lot of conservatives and tea party guys have this fantasy that if some sober well-spoken adult would just have an intelligent conversation with the American people, then they could convince the voters that we can't afford it and must cut spending, but that fantasy is wrong. Anyone who tries to take on that role in a national presidential election is going to lose very badly.

So, if the voters absolutely insist on a level of spending that requires more taxes, and if they are willing to back up that demand by voting out any presidential candidate who runs on cutting spending, then we've only got one other way to balance the budget.

Which is why the Constitution, as originally written, never meant the tax and spend clause to be a general grant of power for the general welfare--but was supposed to be restrained by the specific delegated powers the Constitution gave to the federal govt. This is why promoting the word "democracy" is used--to mislead the people into thinking whatever they want as an entitlement can just be voted in.

Like Madison said, this is why democracies have short lives and end. We're still a young country....maybe this democracy gig will end soon.

I'm not saying the voters are wise or right, I'm just saying we need to deal with reality on reality's terms, and not the fantasyland that we may wish America was.

The reality is that the people absolutely, unmovingly, insist on a level of spending that is roughly where we're at. There may be a little waste, but not much. It is so politically dangerous to run on cutting spending (except in the abstract where you don't have to say what you'll cut), that the GOP was actually trying to win elections by convincing the voters that the Dems were cutting medicare. Forget about actually running on cutting entitlement programs, the "conservative" party was arguing that they should be elected to make sure the Dems don't cut entitlement programs, which is just weird if you really think cutting spending is a viable political option.

So, since we live in a democracy and not a dictatorship, and since the electorate gets to decide how much we spend, we only have one real option. You can't just fold your arms and tell the voters no, they'll vote your ass out of office and find someone who will say yes.

__________________
<ptp> how many emo kids does it take to change a lightbulb?
<Willy> HOW MANY?!
<ptp> none they just sit in the dark and cry

I'm not saying the voters are wise or right, I'm just saying we need to deal with reality on reality's terms, and not the fantasyland that we may wish America was.

The reality is that the people absolutely, unmovingly, insist on a level of spending that is roughly where we're at. There may be a little waste, but not much. It is so politically dangerous to run on cutting spending (except in the abstract where you don't have to say what you'll cut), that the GOP was actually trying to win elections by convincing the voters that the Dems were cutting medicare. Forget about actually running on cutting entitlement programs, the "conservative" party was arguing that they should be elected to make sure the Dems don't cut entitlement programs, which is just weird if you really think cutting spending is a viable political option.

So, since we live in a democracy and not a dictatorship, and since the electorate gets to decide how much we spend, we only have one real option. You can't just fold your arms and tell the voters no, they'll vote your ass out of office and find someone who will say yes.

So...if you were to run today with a slogan like "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" you'd get your ass handed to you? I agree.

__________________
“It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.” - Mark Twain

Nah, the voters love catchy clever-sounding slogans, and they also like the feeling they get if they think they are contributing something to society.

But if you dare suggest that you need to make a significant cut to medicaid, medicare, or social security, then they will murder you and find a politician who won't do that.

I think a generation ago there was a real and true concern about the state of the nation; people would try and do their part for the sake of the country...now I think it's a "me first" mentality...at least to a large enough degree to where this country may never make it back to the prosperity and status we once had.

__________________
“It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.” - Mark Twain